Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @06:53AM
from the if-it-don't-kill-you-first dept.

Fantastic Lad sends us to Wired for a story on the upside of nicotine. Researchers are developing drugs based on nicotine that may prove beneficial for brains, bowels, blood vessels and immune systems. "Nicotine acts on the acetylcholine receptors in the brain, stimulating and regulating the release of a slew of brain chemicals, including seratonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. Now drugs derived from nicotine and the research on nicotine receptors are in clinical trials for everything from helping to heal wounds, to depression, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, Tourette Syndrome, ADHD, anger management and anxiety." A separate story talks about nicotine warding off Parkinson's disease.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people to swallow. Most drugs that have such an obvious and strong effect on people and have been tested on millions with few adverse effects (all the bad effects of smoking come mostly from the smoke + chronic use—the nicotine merely makes it addictive) usually yield other valuable research output.

I don't see any reason to let emotional value judgments get in the way of potentially valuable medical applications. Let's turn that frown upside down and make a negative into a positive!

Disclaimer: No I'm not a drug company representative nor a smoking advocate.

I have a disease called Colitis Ulcerosa which went unnoticed for 25 years because of smoking (If you smoke and have the symptoms I have they will not think of Colitis Ulcerosa first because smoking cigarettes stops it).And then I quit and started bleeding internally.

What I have come to understand though is that smoking cigarettes has a better effect as smoking cigars or pipe or even using skin patches with nicotine or nicotine chewing gum. My doctor said it probably is not the nicotine but one of the other

I guess that you're intimating that the cigarette companies are pushing this.

I'm sure that it won't be administered via a cigarette because the delivery system is important too. In the case of cigarettes, the delivery mechanism causes more harm than the nicotine helps. After all, antibiotics are good medicine but you wouldn't administer them by putting them on the tip of a knitting needle and jamming it into your eyeball.

I'm sure that it won't be administered via a cigarette because the delivery system is important too. In the case of cigarettes, the delivery mechanism causes more harm than the nicotine helps. After all, antibiotics are good medicine but you wouldn't administer them by putting them on the tip of a knitting needle and jamming it into your eyeball.

Who said that cigarettes had to be the delivery mechanism? I'm sure cigarette companies have a large stake in tobacco farms, and may even own them. Seeing the heavy legislation and the decline in smoking, they are doing what any well-run company would do, which is to pursue other markets. The nicotine has to come from somewhere.

You should really know more about a subject before you go on spouting things like "You can be sure the tobacco industry is funding this research." A large portion of this funding is coming from the NIH and one of the main areas of study is smoking cessation. That most certainly does not benefit the tobacco companies. In addition, none of these studies would suggest a cigarette, dip or chew as the route of administration so once again no benefit. If anything, the pharm companies stand to gain while the tobacco companies stand to lose because the drugs in question are all synthetic nicotine like substances that are patented and solely under big pharma control.

To say, "nicotine is good for you" isn't quite true either. It's simply being found to be a useful tool to manipulate the body. Healthy bodies get along just fine without drugs. When something goes wrong, and they go to a doctor, the doctor tries to counter-act what is going wrong, selecting from a set of tools that he has available to him. Nicotine is, apparently, a good candidate for this collection of tools.

I can guarantee you that delivery system for all the new nicotine based drugs will not be cigarettes.

You're right. Your doctor isn't going to say, "Take two Marlboro's and call me in the morning." If necessary, the doctor would prescribe some pill that you take which contains nicotine or a synthetic version that is not addictive.

That said, there are plenty of people who like to do things that are supposedly good for them. The Grandparent's example of drinking wine is a great one--I know of a few people who have started having a glass or two of wine in the evenings because it's supposed to be good for t

Well, the difference here is really that drinking wine daily promotes general heart health and can be beneficial to all. If you are not suffering from Alzheimer's, depression, schizophrenia, ADHD, or anxiety, taking nicotine based drugs probably wouldn't really help you much, if at all. That would be like a non-cancer patient taking interferon, or someone who isn't diabetic injecting themselves with insulin. Just because something is beneficial to certain ailments doesn't mean it also promotes general good

This certainly sounds too good to be true. Makes me wonder who's funding the research.

Actually, according to TFA (you did RTFA, right? Nevermind, "I must be new here";), the company doing the research was founded by a guy who used to work for RJ Reynolds. RJR retains a 4% stake in the company.

Still, why poo poo the research just because its linked to RJR? It's not like they're trying to use it to sell cigarettes here... they're developing drugs based on a modified nicotine. Sounds good to me.

Not exclusively nicotine. They sell an image. Nicotine is just a nice side effect that keeps people physically addicted to their stuff.

Sure, but so does alcohol or any other legally addictive substance. My point here is not to start a comparison war or a flame on which drug is healthier/less addictive etc. I'm just trying to point out that there is a LOT of hypocrisy surrounding cigarettes and smoking. My guess is that this hypocrisy mainly arises because smoking has now become socially unfashionable and even a taboo, at least in the US. Let me put it another way: If the same study was done about say, the beneficial effect of wines or alcohol in general, i bet you would see a tiny fraction of comments making snide remarks about the validity of the test and about the funding agency. Yes yes, I know, the tobacco industry is evil and has a history of funding shady science, but I still feel that the scorn being shown on/. is disproportionate. Heck, even a hard drug like cocaine or LSD wouldn't get this much opposition and sarcasm.

I was told after a single trip on LSD you could experience flashbacks from it without taking the drug again and these could be good or bad. So from what I was told (at school) LSD sounds like it's worse than nicotine.

By scientific literature, LSD is one of the SAFEST drugs known to man and completely non-addictive. Seriously (it stunned me too, I've been trying to find any valid finding of dangers for a while.) Flashbacks appear to be a psychological effect and rare, more like Viet Nam vet's flashbacks.

Here's some perspective in people averaging over 3 drinks of alcohol per day, PERMANENT deficiencies in problem solving, concentration and memory begin to appear. (This is a statistic, so it is probably people who binge drink on weekends that have the damage, not those who have a few every day. I'm sure you remember mornings when you had brain damage.)

The relapse rates for quitting smokers are on par with heroin addicts.

"Not exclusively nicotine. They sell an image. Nicotine is just a nice side effect that keeps people physically addicted to their stuff."

It isn't just that...for many of us, smoking is FUN. I wish to hell it wasn't bad for you...if it weren't, I'd go back to it. It just was so natural to be in a bar, have a drink in one hand...smoke in the other. It also appeals to the 'firebug' in many people. Half the fun to me was the lighting up part.

Also, was a neat way to introduce yourself to a woman...even not smoking any more, I often carry a lighter to light a smoke for her when she pulls one out.

I'm sure some people...many in fact...are very hooked to nicotine..but, not everyone. Whenever I quit (and I've gone for years at a time)..the first 2 days are a PITA...but, not that big a deal after than. I didn't really smoke 'cause I NEEDED ONE....I did it because it was fun and an enjoyable activity for me.

I don't think anyone is smoking because it "looks cool" or promotes an image. Most people I think smoke because they enjoy it and it is fun. If they came out with a harmless cigarette....I'd start smoking again immediately.

Most people I think smoke because they enjoy it and it is fun. If they came out with a harmless cigarette....I'd start smoking again immediately.

Biochemical dependence has a remarkable effect on the brain's perception of pleasure. I wonder if you'd find it at all fun if they made a nicotine-free cigarette. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure most nonsmokers (who do not have a baseline level of nicotine in their blood) would suddenly find nicotine patches to be "fun" if they used them for a week straight.

,,,but breathing in tar and particulate matter does not. And even if they find some beneficial uses for nicotene, its use must still be weighed against its effects as an addictive stimulant, including constricting the arteries and making people more susceptible to stroke and heart attacks.

No matter what uses they find for nicotene, you're not going to suddenly make smoking healthy, so it wouldn't matter even if the tobacco industry was funding this.

You have some evidence, I assume, to back up your claim that nicotine gum makes people more susceptible to stroke and heart attacks?...

Looks like some advice I got from my grandmother's doctor years ago was wrong. Even though chewing tobacco doubles the risk of heart disease, apparently nicotine patches and gum have not been shown to significantly raise the risk of heart disease. I always assumed that was the fault of stimulant abuse, but it seems that patch-delivered nicotine does not raise the risk in

I think they are planning on modified nicotine. Anyway, considering all the stuff in cigarettes, I don't think nicotine is the worst part - it's just the part that makes it hard for you to quit.

Personally, I think the idea of modified nicotine may hold promise for many, but for those who smoke, the concept is somewhat akin to taking caffeine tablets instead of enjoying (or sharing ) that great cup of coffee. To the extent it works, life becomes a little bit less enjoyable. And less social.

I smoke. Not because I suffer from an addiction to nicotine, or an innability to change any number of related habits, but because I choose to. And I derive great pleasure from it for a large number of reasons. I have, on occasion, cut back, or stopped entirely for weeks or months at a time, but I think that was due in most part to suffering the effects of a good habit gone bad. Too much of anything is bad (or bad for you, if you prefer). The ability to make that distinction is important.

The benefits of nicotine for those suffering schizophrenia I found notable. Anyone familiar with the disease knows that smoking "relaxes" schizophrenics. I have a family member who has suffered from schizophrenia for most of his life. Watching him suffer from the disease is one thing, but seeing him endure the effects of the varying regimen of (mostly ineffective) drugs was even more painful. Personally, I'd prefer that he have a cigarette from time to time to make his (and others) life more bearable.

For anyone that has opinions on smoking that borders on the hysterical, I'd suggest they lighten up. Or better still, light up once in a while. There are many things in life that are good for you in small amounts, but dangerous or poisonous at higher levels. Put another way, you'd be better served by not moralising your (and everyone else's) choices and instead, pick your favourite poison and enjoy it responsibly. Besides, what else are you going to do after sex? Peel an orange?

"Anyway, considering all the stuff in cigarettes, I don't think nicotine is the worst part"

That's right. News flash to Slashdot, nicotine != cigarettes. Every time nicotine comes up, people think it causes lung cancer or heart disease or other ridiculous things. No, smoking causes those. Nicotine doesn't. In fact, some benefits of nicotine have been known for a long time. Of course it's an effective stimulant and makes people feel good. It can make people work more productively. But more importantly, it'

Well, nicotine is a tremendously addictive substance, like heroin, and a powerful stimulant to the body. It screws around with the all kinds of chemical receptors in the brain, including the ones that allow you to feel good. This is why a smoker in need of a fix is usually irritable and grumpy before taking that first sweet drag.

But, you are right, the real danger with smoking is, well, smoking all the other shit that's in cigarettes - the nicotine is a secondary concern. The danger of the nicotine in cigarettes is the fact that it keeps you addicted.

It's in your language - you see not smoking as a sacrifice. Every time you mention to anyone that you're giving up, you subtly reinforce to yourself the idea that you are depriving yourself of something pleasurable.

I stopped smoking instead of giving up. I made a point of referring to it in that fashion. The thing is, because of that attitude, I made sure I didn't feel like I was missing out on anything.

Giving up smoking is hard - I tried it several times. Stopping smoking is much easier.

Exactly. Also, it's not like I needed some researcher to tell me that nicotine helps prevent anger, depression, and anxiety. Oh well, quit after about 12 years and I'm guessing that the "modified nicotine in a pill" is going to be more expensive than my old pack of Camels.

You also don't eat moldy oranges if you have a bacteria infection. You don't drink rusty water if you have an iron defiancy. Smoking is a horible way of reaping any benefits of nicotine, first you get an uneven doses of it that is difficult to measure, there is tar that sticks to your lungs, There are a bunch of other hazardous chemicals that are released from the burning process. The same for "Medical" Marjuna, they give you a joint to smoke. That is stupid unmedical it is only an excuse to take the dr

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that while the nicotine makes quitting smoking hard to do, its health effect is not as great as that of the other substances in smoke such as tar. That's what gives you lung cancer, not the nicotine itself.

Well, nicotine is indeed a very toxic substance, according to Wikipedia even more toxic than cocaine. On the other hand, lethal substances are used all the time as medicine, it all comes down to how much you administer compared to the level required to reach the lethal or damaging effect. I assume further testing on this will reveal if nicotine in levels that are helpful with the issues mentioned in the summary also provide a different health risk. However, the grand parent (and several others in this threa

Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor. When your arteries are already clogged and hardened, it has the potential to turn disease into death.

But the real problem is in how nicotine works together with carbon monoxide to destroy your heart. When your body takes in carbon monoxide, oxygen distribution becomes less efficient. The heart muscle specifically requires a continuous supply of oxygen to sustain itself. When you smoke a cigarette, at the same time you're taking in carbon monoxide, the nicotine is also co

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that while the nicotine makes quitting smoking hard to do, its health effect is not as great as that of the other substances in smoke such as tar. That's what gives you lung cancer, not the nicotine itself.

That is mostly true. Wikipedia says

The currently available literature indicates that nicotine, on its own, does not promote the development of cancer in healthy tissue and has no mutagenic properties. However, nicotine and the increased cholinergic

I quit smoking about a year ago, and I've found that there is one bad thing about quitting (at least for me). I used to always get up, have a smoke, and within minutes I would need to go poop. Since I quit smoking, my pooping schedule is all messed up. When your bowels perform like clockwork for decades, to have that schedule go awry is truly a shitty thing.

Nicotine is a toxin.
Heck it's more toxic that arsenic and roughly the same toxicity of cyanide (roughly 50mg). Something as dangerous as that shouldn't be prescribed for non-life threatening situations (smoking can be considered life threatening).

Most things are toxic at some level, be it 50mg or 500mg. If you take too much tylenol it can kill you. That doesn't mean that at low doses its not useful.

And also, they are not saying smoking is healthy, they are investigating the properties of nicotine and how it affects the brain. Smoking is not the only method of getting nicotine into the body. If they can isolate helpful effects of the drug, maybe it can do some good.

Is there anything that isn't toxic in extreme levels? The human body is really quite fragile when you consider it.

People have died from overdosing on most over-the-counter drugs. I have heard that Vitamin C is even toxic in extreme levels. If you are in the arctic, and live purely off of Rabbit meat, it is toxic (protein poisoning). Even water can kill you if you drink too much of it (kidney overload?)? Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't think of anything that isn't toxic in the improper quantitie

Lots of people go for botox treatments, and allegedly some of them end up looking better;).

People consume poisons all the time - capsaicin (in spicy foods), cyanide (in almonds), caffeine, and nicotine. Chrysanthemum is often made into a tea, but it contains pyrethrum which is a "natural pesticide".

In fact, it may be that a lot of smokers are dying more due to the radioactivity than the nicotine or tar.

wiki: "One study found that tobacco grown in India averaged only 0.09 pCi per gram of polonium 210, whereas tobacco grown in the United States averaged 0.516 pCi per gram."

"In support of this hypothetical link between radioactive elements in tobacco and cancer is the observation that bladder cancer incidence is also proportional to the amount of tobacco smoked, even though nonradioactive carcinogens have not been detected in the urine of even heavy smokers; however, urine of smokers contains about six times more polonium 210 than that of nonsmokers, suggesting strongly that the polonium 210 is the cause of the bladder carcinogenicity, and would be expected to act similarly in the lungs and other tissue."

One study found that tobacco grown in India averaged only 0.09 pCi per gram of polonium 210, whereas tobacco grown in the United States averaged 0.516 pCi per gram.

Quick guide to Indian tobacco:If you're poor, smoke beedis (unflavored ones); If you're rich, Trichnopoly cigars (Woraiyur suruttu used to be an excellent choice).The first is probably available at your local Indian store and the second at elite tobacconists'.

Many medical products can be lethal at relatively small dosage but they are used everyday because, when handled correctly, they are benefical and relatively safe, so I see no reason not to consider using nicotine as a medication the same way we use morphine.

For an addicted smoker, on the other hand, the nicotine fix is not that different from heroine addiction, with of course the notable and fortunate exception that nicotine addiction rarely triggers criminal or short term destructive behaviors.

They are not saying smoking is good for you. They are just saying nicotine may have benefits in certain circumstance. Coca leaves also may have some benefit, but no is is advocating crack as a cure-all. So may red wine, but that also doesn't mean drowning yourself in moonshine is better because it has more alcohol.The human body is way too complicated for simplistic analysis.

BTW, I heard that if you are taking one cigarette and put it in a glass of water (cigarette tea), that drinking it can kill you. S

The idea is that nicotine releases happy chemicals in your brain. I think we've already known this for a while - it's why it's so hard to quit smoking. Now they are realizing that happy chemicals can treat some psychological disorders. Plausible.
However, there is a problem with this theory that we've recognized for a long time. When we artifically create these chemicals in the brain via medications or other chemicals and drugs, we get used to having the feeling. Then, in ordinary situations where we are supposed to experience happiness (ex. a day off, a sunny day, a good dessert, a good song) we don't feel anything. This leads further into depression because people literally cannot find happiness in activities they once found enjoyable. Any of the "happy chemicals" that might go off naturaly are so negligible compared to the constant chemicals caused by the drugs that the good experiences may just as well have never happened.
So, nicotine makes you happy? Probably. Can help with certain mental disorders? Again, probably. But should it be used / is it the best solution? That is what's debatable.

I had a bout of depression last year and I saw a psychiatrist. I went over my life history. At the end of the session, he recommended a cocktail of 3 different drugs! Apparently because I had had a manic episode once in my life when I was in high-school, I was a manic-depressive. I needed one drug for the depression, one for the mania, and some other one. Jesus Christ.

I stopped seeing him. I was looking into 'legal' highs for depression, such as St. John's Wort and

Since I also had problems concentrating, I tried smoking for the nicotine. I found that it really helped with my anxiety. I took a smoke after work, I relaxed, and then moved my bowels. I felt calm and focused rather than frenzied and harried. Things were right on course instead of all over the place. I've since given it up, however, since I started coughing.

I know smoking destroys your lungs gives you cancer after decades. My maternal grandparents died of cancers in their 60s, probably from smoking. All the people I try to turn on to smoking tell me that. But what are the long-term effects of taking anti-depression or anti-anxiety medication for decades.

It seems to me that cigarettes are a relatively cheap and simple anti-depressant. Although there are long term health consequences, we don't really know what the damage is from decades of wellbutrin. Of course, Big Pharma would rather have us rely on them for anti-depressants than use a simple plant that we could grow ourselves... Hey, that sounds familiar.

I doubt the cough was in your lungs--more likely in your head. I smoked for 14 years, sometimes over a pack per day, and I never developed a cough. Only the puffingest of my friends started coughing before their forties. On the other hand, the patch is a lot safer. If the dose they deliver is too big you could cut them into smaller pieces and save money too.

Not that that's as much fun as smoking. I gave it up for my health, but I loved every butt I ever smoked. If I'm ever diagnosed with a terminal d

Wow. You knew you had a problem to the extent that you actually went to the trouble of seeing a psychiatrist (not a quick or cheap thing to do in our society, sadly, both in terms of financial and social costs), who recommended drug therapy.
I'm assuming s/he also suggested psychotherapy, which any psychiatrist worth beans will recommend way before they get to the point of doling out medication.

They gave me three options. One one for the three drug cocktail that they wanted. The other was for effexor I think. The final option he gave me was for norpremin, which I remembered helping me in the past. Psychotherapy wasn't on the list; I couldn't afford it anyway.

I've seen various counselors, social workers, therapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists since I was in the third grade. I was hospitalized for depression when I was 12. I was one of the first kids prescribed prozac in the early nineties

Alcohol withdrawal differs significantly from withdrawal from other drugs in that it can be directly fatal. While it is possible for heroin addicts, for instance, to die from other health problems made worse by the strain of withdrawal, an otherwise healthy alcoholic can die from the direct effects of withdrawal if it is not properly managed. Heavy consumption of alcohol reduces the production of GABA, which is a neuroinhibitor. An abrupt stop of alcohol consumption can induce a condition where neither alcohol nor GABA exists in the system in adequate quantities, causing uncontrolled firing of the synapses. This manifests as hallucinations, shakes, convulsions, seizures, and possible heart failure, all of which are collectively referred to as delirium tremens. All of these withdrawal issues can be safely controlled with a medically supervised detox.

Not only is alcohol physically addictive, it's even worse than heroin and nicotine.

They're planning on using Nicotine as a basis for new drugs by using similar structures to target receptors in the brain and slow, pause or reverse diseases like parkinsons.

Alternatively they're looking at cremes which can be used to promote blood flow to parts of the body (begin Viagra jokes now please). Mostly as a way to prevent Diabetic amputations which means its better for the health care system since they wont have to chop off as many legs which means less people in wheelchairs and such.

It's not endorsing that people go light up. Just that they can probably make these things new drugs and get them in 'patch form' in the future (because lets face it lighting up a cigarette is not the best method of administering such a drug)

"There will be great progress when the nicotine sister drugs come to market," he says. "About half the cigarettes in this country are bought by people with psychiatric problems -- high percentages of people with depression and schizophrenia smoke, for example.

Wow, about a quarter of people smoke so 12% of people have psychiatric problems.

We're going to replace a $2.50 pack of cigarettes with a $400 bottle of pills, and declare victory! I would be more than willing to bet that even if you factor in the eventual risk cost of cancer and other smoking related diseases, it might still come in cheaper than the cost of exotic drugs based on nicotine. The moral of the story is, smoke up to avoid depression, and hope science comes up with a cheaper pill to cure cancer.

Packaged in a 20 dose per container. New fashionable "inhaler" delivery system. Regular, 100 and 120 mg sizes. To take the new drugs you light the end of the inhaler tube and inhale the refreshing vapor. The dose burns with a pleasing aroma and relaxing patterns of vapor. 20 doses, take as needed 20 times per day or more. Packed in soft of hard pack box and cartons. Available at most gas stations. Menthol and other flavors available. NOW over the counter!

I've been using Nicotine as a treatment for Tourettes syndrome for a few months now, and can quite honestly say It's saved my life. The only other treatments are incredibly severe drugs with worse side effects than the illness itself, and I was damn near suicidal for a while contemplating life with an untreatable movement disorder.

Then on some forum advice I tried a nicotine patch. Within an hour it had a noticeable affect, and within 3 hours there was an almost complete reduction in symptoms. I also found it had a similar affect with OCD and ADD (Although I'm not formally diagnosed with the latter, I found I could concentrate far better with a nicotine patch)

The separate story referred to on the lead article is not about nicotine, it's about smoking. My dissertation was based on showing that at least one substance that prevented Parkinson's was active in the brains of smokers despite 8+ hours of abstinence (reduction of plasma nicotine levels to less than 1% of usual). I tested smokers abstaining and after smoking either a normal cigarette or one made from denicotinized tobacco and found no difference between conditions or groups. Nicotine or lack thereof had nothing to do with the EEG signature of chronic increased dopamine levels compared to non-smokers (which was the study I did prior to my diss). This work, and that of the folks in the chemistry department that isolated and synthesized the hypothesized active component, was what was referred to in "Thank You For Smoking". And to preempt any conclusion jumping, this doesn't mean you should smoke. Knowing what the substance is (trimethyl naphthoquinone) and how it works (dopamine releaser and reuptake blocker as well as MAO inhibitor) means it or something that does the same thing can be developed and used without needing tobacco in the process.

The carbon monoxide effect has some merit too. CO in the blood scavenges excess hyperoxides, a source of oxidative stress which is a known cause of Parkinson's and other apparent autoimmune problems. As above, you don't need to smoke to get the effect and can obviously find other things to do the same job. They're called anti-oxidants.

Nicotine may well also have some other protective effect, but it doesn't prevent mitochondrial MPTP from turning into MPP+, a very potent neurotoxin that causes Parkinsonian apoptosis. To read up on the mechanism, look up the "frozen addicts". As an interesting aside, at least one of them was all but completely cured in weeks using injected stem cells before the fundies got ahold of the concept and strangled it.

One of my neuroscience profs used to tell us before exams that if we smoke, we should smoke more. Apparently nicotine's cholinergic effects considerably boost memory, although for me the nausea and jitteriness probably undermine any positive effects (and then there's the cancer...)

1. The Filter. --One of the more harmful elements in cigarette smoking is the filter; loose fibers from the filter which are.3 microns in length have the remarkable ability to lodge in your lungs and never come out again. Much like asbestos, this can cause problems. Unlike asbestos, fibers from cigarette filters also come coated with toxins in smoke tar. I recently read a study, (blowed if I can find it again), which found that small cancers in the lungs typically had a tar-coated filter fiber at their center.

2. Additives. --In looking at the toxicity issue with regard to tobacco, I have noted that it is incredibly common for people to ignore the fact that cigarette companies use an assortment of 500 additives into their products, many of which are known carcinogens. [about.com] When studies are done on the toxicity of tobacco smoke, this detail is often left unmentioned. Are they testing tobacco per se, or are they testing corporate tobacco?

3. Radioactive tobacco leaves. --Your basic cigarette probably came from a farm which used phosphate fertilizer, known to contain radioactive metals [cannabisculture.com]. After years of use, these radioactive metals build up in the soil to high concentrations. Many foods are similarly affected, but you don't smoke most foods. This element of tobacco is considered by those who have studied the issue to be one of the leading reasons smoking can cause cancer.

You can buy organic tobacco, [motherearthtobacco.com] and you can smoke it in a pipe. No filter, no deliberately added poisons and no radioactive particles. I wonder if they've ever done health tests on this kind of tobacco smoke.

Probably not.

Here are some more points. ..

1. Pavlovian Responses to stress indicate that when you raise the anxiety level in a subject to the breaking point, you can then easily insert a new set of behaviors which become locked into place. ..

Pavlov demonstrated that when Transmarginal Inhibition began to take over a dog, a condition similar to hysteria in a human manifested. The applications of these findings to human psychology suggest that for a "conversion" to be effective, it is necessary to work on the subject's emotions until s/he reaches an abnormal condition of fear, anger or exaltation. If such a state is maintained or intensified by any of various means, hysteria is the result. In a state of hysteria, a human being is abnormally suggestible and influences in the environment can cause one set of behavior patterns to be replaced by another without any need for persuasive indoctrination. In states of fear and excitement, normally sensible human beings will accept the most wildly improbably suggestions. [. ..] Most of Pavlov's findings applicable to Mind Control are reported in a series of Pavlov's later lectures translated by Horsley Gantt, published in Great Britain and the United States in 1941 under the title "Conditioned Reflexes and Psychiatry." [5] Professor Y. P. Frolov's book about these experiments, Pavlov and His School [6] has also been translated into English. Article here [cassiopedia.org]

2. Tobacco smoke quickly lowers stress and anxiety and feelings of anger. It is one of the only two commonly used drugs on the market which while increasing clarity of thinking does not affect judgment. (Caffeine is the other). Old native bands meeting to discuss problems would all first smoke before opening their meeting, (hence, the "peace pipe"). Tobacco lent itself well to averting unnecessary anger and anxiety. In a world like ours today when fear is regularly promoted in such a way which guides the decisions and acceptance of the public with regard to international policy, knowledge

Nicotine is one of the least dangerous ingredients of tobacco smoke. People think nicotine is this horrible thing. Granted, it is somewhat addictive, but not terribly addictive. I say that as someone who's smoked for over 20 years and has tried to quit a number of times. I can easily break the "nicotine addiction" aspect of it. That only takes a couple days. It's the habit of smoking that's a bitch. I can go without nicotine for weeks or months (well beyond the time it takes to break the addiction), but it's the psychological habit I can't seem to kick.

Nicotine has a number of pharmacological properties that can be beneficial, however, so it's no surprise that nicotine derivatives might be found that can also have positive effects.

This is hardly the first time toxic substances have proven (although it's not proven yet) to have health benefits. For example, smoking marijuana (or THC rather) has proven to be an effective pain medication and helpful to some very ill people.

Whether or not it is politically correct to tout this information.. well, that's a different story.

Hi there. Your argument for the legalization of marijuana fails to even be coherent. Please put down the bong. You can't say "See?!?! Nicotine is used by the mentally ill, according to this doctor, so Marijuana is good!" There isn't any nicotine in marijuana. It's called THC, and other assorted cannibinols. Just how did the article demonstrate the idiocy of marijuana being on Schedule I?I am a marijuana user, and am all for legalization, but it's people like you who spew any garbage rhetoric that you can, e